County Court Claim - BW Legal

cherylwales

Any comments or advice on my defence would be very much appreciated!

Le_Kirk

Seems to have everything it needs, especially if based on one of the defence examples in the NEWBIE sticky post # 2.

Coupon-mad

But you do need to add this into the facts of your defence and say that in 2015 under the Trade Body Code of Practice, PPCs were (and still are) not allowed to use misleading words about their level of authority and 'fixed penalty' and 'fine' are specifically noted as not allowed on signs or paperwork:

I have also found a photograph of the car park signage that was present back in 2015 which was taken for me by somebody local back when the PCN was originally issued. It clearly refers to a "Fixed Penalty of £100" with no mention of the other additional charges which they're claiming for. Nor does it say that ANPR cameras are being used.

cherylwales

Thank you Coupon-Mad, I’ll be sure to add that in then.

cherylwales

Ok, final defence as below...any last comments before I send it off tomorrow?


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

PREMIER PARK LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

Background

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at Maritime Car Park on 06/07/15.

2. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper committing any offence. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) on the Claim Form refer to a 'Parking Charge Notice' (PCN). However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for this charge, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached.

3. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice '.

4. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous - abuse of process

5. In addition to the original PCN sum of £100, for which any liability is denied, the Claimant has artificially inflated the claim’s value by adding alleged “contractual costs” of £60, as well as interest which is also not recoverable under POFA. In the PoC, the Claimant seeks to justify the £60 sum with the phrase “pursuant to PCN Terms and Conditions”. The Defendant asserts that there were no terms offered in the PCN.

6. The PoC refer to a further sum of £50 purportedly for “legal representative’s costs”, inflating the total to £239.42 (excluding court fee). This sum amounts to more than double recovery.


7. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

8. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

9. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

10. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims.

11. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

12. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

13. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
The Judge stated:-
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

14. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

15. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

16. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

Sparse Particulars

17. Due to the sparse details on the original 'PCN' and the equally lacking Particulars of Claim (PoC), the Claimant has afforded the Defendant no opportunity to understand the allegation. The Defendant requires a copy of the alleged contract (the signage terms on the material date) and a full and detailed explanation of the cause of action and on what basis they purport to hold the Defendant liable. The PoC do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies the terms in question nor indeed how the terms were breached.

18. The Defendant has sent a subject access request (SAR) to the Claimant, and will expand upon the denial of breach in the witness statement and evidence, once the Defendant has seen the details from the SAR and/or in the event that the Court orders the Claimant to file & serve better particulars.

Denial of contract and denial of any breach, or liability

19. Due to the sparseness of the PoC it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle breached any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

20. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

21. Given the fact that the Claimant has waited four years to bring this action, it is not remembered for how long an occupant of the vehicle paid a tariff for parking and the Defendant is none the wiser due to the lack of information from the Claimant. The PCN and PoC could mean that the Claimant is suggesting the car overstayed paid for time, or indeed that no time was paid for at all, and it is impossible for the Defendant to be certain about the alleged breach and to make an informed decision about what to say by way of defence, which puts the Defendant in a position of disadvantage.

Signage 



22. The car park signage present at Maritime Car Park clearly referred to a "Fixed Penalty of £100". In 2015 under the Trade Body Code of Practice, Private Parking Companies were (and still are) not allowed to use misleading words about their level of authority. The words 'fixed penalty' and 'fine' are specifically noted as not allowed on signs or paperwork.

23. It is denied that the Claimant's signage sets out the terms in a manner sufficiently clear to bind any reasonable person reading them:

(a) No terms and conditions are provided.

(b) The signage does not state that hidden ANPR cameras are in use. Such information is essential for the reader to know that they are not being timed for “parking” as the signage states, but for driving through an unmanned entrance. The Defendant asserts that this is omitted from signage in furtherance of an unscrupulous and profitable scheme to ‘trap’ motorists into unavoidable PCNs, issued even to drivers who pay in good faith and exit parking bays in good time. The signage refers to “Parking Charges”, not “Entering Charges”.


(c) The Claimant is a member of the British Parking Association’s “Approved Operator Scheme”. This membership grants the Claimant access to DVLA data, and it requires members to adhere to BPA’s Code Of Practice. CoP Version 6, Paragraph 21(1) refers to ANPR cameras: “Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.” There were no such signs and no such information was provided.


No standing or authority to form contracts and/or litigate

24. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

25. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

cherylwales

So, having submitted the defence, its been nice having a few weeks of not thinking about all this over the summer but I guess now its back to it.

Letter received from BWLegal this week stating their 'Notice of Intention to Proceed'. All the usual drivel about how we should just pay them to avoid a CCJ etc, which I am used to now so know to just ignore. However, they also say that if the court judgement is against us then we will also be liable to pay their clients costs in addition to the sums already claimed. Can any body please confirm whether or not this is true and if so, a rough idea of what these might involve??!
Thank you

beamerguy

cherylwales wrote: »

So, having submitted the defence, its been nice having a few weeks of not thinking about all this over the summer but I guess now its back to it.

Letter received from BWLegal this week stating their 'Notice of Intention to Proceed'. All the usual drivel about how we should just pay them to avoid a CCJ etc, which I am used to now so know to just ignore. However, they also say that if the court judgement is against us then we will also be liable to pay their clients costs in addition to the sums already claimed. Can any body please confirm whether or not this is true and if so, a rough idea of what these might involve??!
Thank you

Drivel from BWLegal is the norm now.
They keep on with this rubbish about a CCJ because they stupidly
think they are going to win ?

They do this "Intention to proceed" to scare you and they may well proceed but before they do the law says (PAP) they must give you 30 days to respond, provide proof of their claim and charges

You do nothing unless you receive a REAL letter of claim giving 30 days to respond.

The letter of claim will include a fake £60 and this is no doubt what they are talking about .... BUT READ THIS

Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

MONEY SCAM

When needed you have coupon-mad's text in POST # 14 of the above thread.

What we are all waiting to hear from BWLegal on what authority do they have to break the law. They keep stum on this but a judge can ask them

cherylwales

Thanks Beamerguy very helpful and interesting reading.

I have also re-read through the sticky threads to refresh my memory on the process. I guess I just wait now to receive the courts questionnaire. There's nothing I need to be doing in the meanwhile is there? Is there a general timescale known? I.e. is it usually 3 months, 6 months etc before the court sends out the questionnaire or is it down to the PPC to respond first?

beamerguy

cherylwales wrote: »

Thanks Beamerguy very helpful and interesting reading.

I have also re-read through the sticky threads to refresh my memory on the process. I guess I just wait now to receive the courts questionnaire. There's nothing I need to be doing in the meanwhile is there? Is there a general timescale known? I.e. is it usually 3 months, 6 months etc before the court sends out the questionnaire or is it down to the PPC to respond first?

Once the PPC has passed it to BWLegal, they just sit and wait

The letter before claim is just that. If that comes giving you 30 days, you can rebut their claim and ask them what authority they have to add fake figures. Of course they won't answer and proceed to a robo claim from Northampton court
You can select your local court and right now, it seems to be 2-3 months or more

Le_Kirk

cherylwales wrote: »

...... having submitted the defence,
Letter received from BWLegal this week stating their 'Notice of Intention to Proceed'. All the usual drivel about how we should just pay them to avoid a CCJ etc, which I am used to now so know to just ignore. However, they also say that if the court judgement is against us then we will also be liable to pay their clients costs in addition to the sums already claimed.

beamerguy wrote: »

Drivel from BWLegal is the norm now. They keep on with this rubbish about a CCJ because they stupidly think they are going to win ?

beamerguy wrote: »

Once the PPC has passed it to BWLegal, they just sit and wait. The letter before claim is just that.

Bit late for the letter of claim as OP has already submitted defence and is presumably waiting for DQ. In terms of costs, I believe it is restricted to the original charge, plus filing fee and hearing fee but for full info, go HERE CPR 27.14